EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Parable for modern Australia

FOR better or worse, Darling Downs stalwart Glen Beutel's battle against the New Hope Mine, which has bought out almost the entire town of Acland where his family has lived for decades, is a parable of our two-speed economy.

Mining is Australia's economic lifeblood, and the development of our coal, iron ore, natural gas and uranium resources will secure our national prosperity. Yet the conflict in Acland, where Mr Beutel has become a hero across the farmlands and towns of the Darling Downs, illustrates the tensions that arise when the demands of the resource industry clash with people who are inconvenienced by the boom and reap few, if any, of its benefits.

Paying attention to the needs of these Australians is an important challenge in the once-in-a-century mining boom, and one that too often is not addressed. State and federal governments, corporations and our wider society will ignore it at our cost. The fact that Mr Beutel, popularly known as the Last Man Standing, has picked up such widespread support so rapidly is a warning sign that Australia could easily experience a repeat of the damaging upheavals that occurred last time large numbers of working people and farmers in rural, regional and outer suburban Australia felt marginalised in the wake of economic reforms.

The free trade drive and competition policy of the 1980s and early 90s positioned Australia well for decades of prosperity and full employment. But they also added to the disaffection of many voters, helping precipitate the rise of One Nation, which won 11 seats from the Nationals and Labor and more than 20 per cent of the vote at the 1998 Queensland election. One Nation was devoid of policy solutions and damaged Australia's standing in the world.

But its rhetoric reflected the disaffection of many with changes that had disrupted their lives, forced local services to close and cost some livelihoods. Tony Abbott's populist instincts have allowed him to retain the support of disaffected conservative and former Labor voters, although Bob Katter is trying to tap into a deep vein of community dissatisfaction with his economically irrational Australian Party. His protectionist policies, like those of One Nation, would harm those he claims to represent.

Mr Beutel's refusal to sell out to a mining company has touched a real nerve because it is about much more than profit or compensation. It is about belonging, about the demise of a close-knit community. It is about a place where koalas feed in eucalypt trees planted by Mr Beutel's parents, where he still mows the gardens that helped Acland win tidy town prizes and where a cherished war memorial honouring local diggers who served their country will be removed. Nor is it surprising that Mr Beutel and many Darling Downs residents lament the potential destruction of prime farmland that has been one of the nation's most important food bowls for generations.

Mr Beutel is unlikely to save his beloved Acland, and the mining company has offered to relocate him. But, in making a stand, with the help of broadcaster Alan Jones, who grew up on a farm outside the town, Mr Beutel has drawn attention to a downside of the mining boom that has to be addressed. Individuals and communities matter. In these situations, compromises are not always possible any more than when local protesters want major dams or freeways stopped. Disenfranchised citizens, however, deserve to be heard.

Political trust is earned slowly and spent quickly

VOTERS tend to respect political leaders who are trustworthy, authentic and committed.

Just as they do in their daily lives, voters prefer people who are reliable. They expect politicians to stand for something, otherwise they can be there only to indulge their personal ambitions. Even when they don't agree with them, voters can have a grudging admiration for people as diverse as Paul Keating, John Howard and Bob Brown, because they have consistently stood up for certain values. If Keating became a monarchist, Howard joined a trade union and Brown bought a coalmine, their reputations would be ruined -- not for what these decisions would say about the issues, but for what they would say about the men making them.

It comes down to a matter of trust. The public knows that politics is full of the sort of negotiation and compromise that will sometimes see policies change and undertakings abandoned. So voters joke about politicians bending the truth. But they do expect their representatives to be true to their basic values, to stand up for what they believe in, and to show durable commitment to their cause.

In the coming week there will be much examination of what has gone wrong for Labor federally. There will be extensive debate about personalities and policies, about vendettas and recriminations, and about polling and leadership options. The Weekend Australian will conscientiously contribute to this detailed discussion. However, we should also consider what is at the core of this debate; just why a popular government lost its way so hopelessly, not just once, but under two prime ministers.

Fundamentally, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and their advisers have fatally under-estimated their compact of trust with the electorate. Mr Rudd should have known that by abandoning his CPRS he was telling the public he was no longer facing up to the "greatest moral challenge of our time". But he was given no opportunity to recognise his error, learn from his mistake and rebuild that trust. When Labor acted expeditiously to replace him, it further weakened its trust with the electorate because it removed the prime minister elected by the voters, who seemed to have more respect for the office than did the MPs themselves.

Ms Gillard has followed a similar path in reverse, first ruling out a carbon tax and then proceeding with the opposite approach. All of this has told the electorate very little about the future of the planet, but a great deal about the lack of core beliefs at the highest levels of the government.

One of the underlying problems is the way the ALP has outsourced itself to a class of young and inexperienced political practitioners, who approach politics as a complex marketing exercise rather than a manifestation of human relationships and an exchange of trust. When spin doctors think they can fudge the truth or pollsters recommend giving the people what they really want, or parties switch to a more popular leader, they tend to be either forgetting the voters or underestimating their intelligence. Either way, the result is politically disastrous.

Politicians such as Lindsay Tanner, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard have driven themselves into the ground seeking to fill the demands of what they like to call the 24-hour news cycle. But the voters don't demand this, and nor does the media. The MPs themselves must make the decision to focus on substantial policy and enact it with conviction, instead of chasing headlines.

Most voters don't follow the day-to-day minutia of national political debate. Rather, they form their views based on a broad sweep of impressions. Governments that constantly change position on an issue like climate change -- from emissions trading scheme to people's forum, from ruling out a tax to imposing one -- will only succeed in demonstrating that they don't know what they stand for. But, worse, they insult the voters. If one argument is right, the other must be wrong. And, if Labor has sought to convince people of the merits of both, it must think the people are gullible.

The Weekend Australian believes Australians, on the whole, are not so easily manipulated. They know governments will come across some tough dilemmas and difficult times, but they expect their leaders to forge a way through. Keating and Howard are the prime recent examples of leaders who endured serious difficulties and emerged with reputations enhanced.

By ditching its CPRS, then its leader, Labor and its young activist apparatchiks suggested they had the wherewithal to muster the public like so many sheep. The public's current, palpable dissatisfaction with the political process reflects a dearth of grown-up political leadership among a sea of pollsters, spin merchants and schemers. It is reasonable to expect some plain-talking leadership that can hold a policy position from one week to the next might be well received. As Labor endures another week of soul-searching, it needs to understand that no advertising campaign, social media gimmick or clever line will fix its malaise. And it need look no further than NSW to see that rotating the leadership is also pointless.

If Labor is to have any hope, its leaders need to switch off their televisions and iPhones, send the pollsters and twentysomething spin doctors out of the room, and decide exactly what it is the party stands for. Oh, and then stick with it for a while. It is called leadership.